2002 (3) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing Modvat credit of Rs. 2,28,200/- to the respondents on blow-room machinery. 2. Examined the records. The credit in question was taken on 1-4-98, i.e., after Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was recast under Notification No. 6/97-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-97. Sub-Rule 7 of that rule required that no credit of duty on the capital goods specified under th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion had been installed in the assessee's factory as on 11-8-99. Hence the present appeal. 3. The appellant is represented by the ld. JDR, Shri C. Mani. There is no representation for the respondents in spite of notice. Reiterating the grounds of the appeal, the DR submits that the machinery in question was installed only on 11-8-99 and, therefore, the credit taken of the duty paid on the item, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been installed before the date on which the credit in question was taken. He prays for allowing the appeal. 4. I am in full agreement with the argument put forth by the DR. The requirement of sub-rule 7 of Rule 57Q as the Rule stood on 1-4-98 was mandatory. This legal position is not contested before me. Going by the report of the Superintendent of Central Excise or the certificate of the asse....